FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to [email protected].




Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

Proposed Local Rules
                


Welcome!

This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 

PLEASE READ - CONTACT INFORMATION: 

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU SUBMIT ALL YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION WHEN SUBMITTING A RULE PETITION OR COMMENT.  OTHERWISE, YOUR SUBMISSION MAY BE REJECTED AND WE WILL BE UNABLE TO ADVISE YOU AS TO WHY. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 09 Jun 2018 03:32 PM by  Dianne Post
R-17-0032 Rule 8.4, Rule 42, Ethics Rules
 34 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Page 2 of 2 << < 12
Author Messages
David Euchner
New Member
Posts:13 New Member

--
21 May 2018 08:55 AM
Attached is my comment opposing the petition.

David J. Euchner, #021768
33 N. Stone Ave., 21st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-9107
[email protected]
Attachments
Patricia A. Sallen
New Member
Posts:4 New Member

--
21 May 2018 11:17 AM
Patricia A. Sallen, Attorney at Law
Bar No. 012338
3104 E. Camelback Road #541
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
480-290-4841
[email protected]

Please find my comment in support of R-17-0032 and amending Ethical Rule 8.4 attached.
Attachments
Ethan Rice, Lambda Legal
New Member
Posts:3 New Member

--
21 May 2018 11:21 AM
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. ("Lambda Legal") writes in support of Petition R-17-0032 and urges this Court to adopt ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). Attached please find our comments outlining the importance of and the need for adopting Model Rule 8.4(g). We appreciate your time and consideration of this matter.


Sincerely,
Ethan Rice
Fair Courts Project Attorney
Lambda Legal
120 Wall Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10005
(212) 809-8585
[email protected]
Admitted to practice in
New York and Florida only
FL Bar # 56897
NY Bar # 5255997

Attachments
William Hardin
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
21 May 2018 11:30 AM
I write in support of Petition R-17-0032 to amend Rule 42, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Ethical Rule 8.4 to conform to ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). I respectfully urge the Court to adopt the amended Rule.

The Rule reflects the higher standards of conduct that the legal profession should, but often does not, strive to uphold. Discrimination and harassment, and institutional indifference to them, impose significant public costs in addition to private harms. When, for example, harassment derails the careers of women in the law, or discrimination limits the advancement of people of color, these harms are personal for sure, but they also inflict serious damage on the profession as a whole. While individual victims may have remedies under the law for some, but not all, forms of discrimination and harassment, the Rule vindicates the important separate principle that the profession should be able to police itself to prevent these behaviors from undermining confidence in, and effectiveness of, the legal system itself.

Many of the comments in opposition to the Petition incorrectly assert that the Rule would somehow infringe on First Amendment rights of lawyers. Most of these seek to elide the well understood distinction between speech and conduct established in over 50 years of civil rights progress. The Rule adheres to well-settled principles that non-discrimination requirements for the practice of a business or profession violate neither the speech nor the religion protections of the First Amendment.

Thank you for considering these comments.

William Hardin
Osborn Maledon, PA
2929 N. Central Ave.
Suite 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (602) 640-9322
[email protected]

Steven W. Fitschen
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
21 May 2018 01:36 PM
Steven W. Fitschen (on behalf of the National Legal Foundation and the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation)

Committee Name: N/A

2224 Virginia Beach Blvd., Ste. 204
Virginia Beach, VA 23454

(757) 463-6133

[email protected]

Virginia Bar Number44063

Attached please find comments in opposition to the proposed rule filed on behalf of the National Legal Foundation and the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation
Attachments
Aditya Dynar
New Member
Posts:3 New Member

--
21 May 2018 01:55 PM
Commenter's Names:
Timothy Sandefur
Christina Sandefur
Matthew R. Miller
Jonathan Riches
Aditya Dynar
Veronica Thorson

Mailing Address:
Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation
at the Goldwater Institute
500 E. Coronado Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Phone Number:
(602) 462-5000

Fax Number:
(602) 256-7045

Email Address:
[email protected]

Bar Number:
Matthew R. Miller (#033951)
Aditya Dynar (#031583)
Attachments
bradabramson
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
21 May 2018 02:52 PM

On behalf of myself and 101 other Arizona licensed attorneys, one legal organization, and one law firm, I attach – both in PDF and Word formats – a joint Comment opposing the adoption of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) in Arizona.

Bradley S. Abramson
AZ Bar No. 029470
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
480-444-0020
[email protected]
Attachments
Jack Park
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
21 May 2018 03:28 PM
For the reasons stated in the attached Comment letter, I recommend that this Court reject the proposed change to Rule 8.4 and deny Petition R-17-0032.

John J Park, Jr.
442 Brookhaven Court
Gainesville, GA 30501

678-347-2200
[email protected]
Attachments
Joseph Domanico
New Member
Posts:26 New Member

--
21 May 2018 03:34 PM
WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
(FIRM STATE BAR NO. 00032000)

MARK FAULL
CHIEF DEPUTY
301 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 800
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
TELEPHONE: (602) 506-3800
(STATE BAR NUMBER 011474)
[email protected]

MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO AMEND ER 8.4, RULE 42, ARIZONA RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT
Attachments
Angelina Nguyen
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
21 May 2018 04:19 PM
The Arizona Attorney General submits this comment regarding R-17-0032 Petition to Amend ER 8.4, Rule 42, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court.

Mark Brnovich
Attorney General
(Firm Bar No. 14000)

Rebekah Browder (Bar No. 24992)
Angelina B. Nguyen (Bar No. 30728)
Assistant Attorneys General
2005 N. Central Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 542-7768
[email protected]
Attachments
Mo
New Member
Posts:9 New Member

--
21 May 2018 04:53 PM
Based on the ten enumerated objections therein, the undersigned 38 lawyers file the attached joint comment against adoption of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) and urge this honorable court to deny the subject petition.

Mauricio R. Hernandez
SBN 020181
PO Box 7347
Goodyear, AZ 85338
(623) 363-2649
[email protected]
Attachments
Samuel Green
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
21 May 2018 10:19 PM
Samuel Green
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(480) 444-0020
[email protected]
AZ Bar # 032586

James Campbell (with permission)
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(480) 444-0020
[email protected]
AZ Bar # 026737


For many of the reasons detailed in the joint comment submitted by Bradley S. Abramson on May 21, 2018, we write in opposition to the petition to amend ER 8.4, Rule 42, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court. The amendment is unnecessary and unconstitutionally burdens protected speech. We urge the Court to reject it.
Dianne Post
New Member
Posts:8 New Member

--
22 May 2018 01:31 PM
Attached please see the Reply from the initial petitioner below.

Dianne Post
006141
Central Arizona National Lawyers Guild
Attachments
Dianne Post
New Member
Posts:8 New Member

--
09 Jun 2018 10:54 AM
Dianne Post
Central Arizona National Lawyers Guild
1826 E Willetta St.
Phoenix, AZ 85006-3047
602 271 9019
[email protected]
Bar No. 006141

The U.S. Supreme Court Supreme created a Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group on Dec. 31, 2017 to review sexual harassment in the workplace. Their report was released on June 1, 2018. In their research, they also relied on the 2016 EEOC study as I did and found similar patterns in the federal judiciary. They recommend a strong policy with effective complaint procedures and multiple channels including more and less formal methods. They also recommend effective training. These trainings need to be for CLE credit from the Bar and Judicial Council.

They are calling for explicit language prohibiting both sexual and other workplace harassment beyond just the courtroom. They specifically include sexual harassment and gender identity as areas to address. The committee created a model EDR plan with non-discriminatory language and made several suggestions for improvement of the existing plan including expanding coverage, using legal definitions of sexual harassment to be clear, defining wrongful conduct and extending the time to file a complaint.

The report of the committee is 144 pages and too late to attach. But you can find it at:

REPORT OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY WORKPLACE CONDUCT
WORKING GROUP
TO
THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
JUNE 1, 2018

The suggested changes to our ethics rule are completely in line with the findings and recommendation of this report from the federal judiciary. Their report illustrates that this problem is deep and wide spread and must be addressed with specificity and determination not just platitudes that only continue the status quo.

Dianne Post
Petitioner
Dianne Post
New Member
Posts:8 New Member

--
09 Jun 2018 03:32 PM
Dianne Post
Central Arizona National Lawyers Guild
1826 E Willetta St.
Phoenix, AZ 85006-3047
602 271 9019
[email protected]
Bar No. 006141

Many of the objections to the proposed ethical rule are based in hostility to the LGBT community and the same sex marriage decision. While we might have expected some significant direction from the Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd et al v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission et al case, (No. 16-111, June 4, 2018) that did not occur. Instead the Supreme Court ducked the First Amendment question instead focusing on the failure of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to give the baker a neutral hearing under the Free Exercise clause.

The Supreme Court was clear however that the laws and the Constitution can and must protect gay persons in the exercise of their civil rights, and that LGBT persons are entitled to equal treatment. “Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applica¬ble public accommodations law.” That is precisely what the proposed ethical rule does.

We do have clear guidance from the Arizona Appeals Court in Brush and Nib Studio, LC, et al., v. City of Phoenix (No. 1 CA-CV 16-0602) June 7, 2018. The court was clear that a business cannot use religious beliefs to justify discrimination. Free speech cannot be used as a shield to protect a business owner’s decision to discriminate based on sexual orientation (¶21, 27), nor can religion be used as a shield to discriminate against certain customers (¶49).

The state does not lose its ability to regulate commercial activity because it has a speech component. (¶34) When the goal is a business operation not a religious activity, the message is not protected speech. (¶35) In the Brush & Nib case as in the opposition to this ethical rule, a parade of hypotheticals, (¶39) some completely outlandish, was trotted out. The court rejected those arguments because a person cannot claim a statute is overbroad because one can imagine some impermissible act. (¶38)

Eliminating discrimination is a compelling state interest (¶36), and anti-discrimination ordinances, here ethical rules for one profession, are not aimed at suppression of speech but elimination of discriminatory conduct. Freedom to express beliefs is not hindered. Rather the rule is aimed at the broader social purpose of eradicating barriers to equal treatment of all citizens in commercial marketplaces (¶50). The court should rely on the reasoning in Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix and approve the rule petition.

Dianne Post
Petitioner
Topic is locked
Page 2 of 2 << < 12